RayC

It's there in the responses to the various questions. For example, over 50% of respondents think that Brexit is having a negative impact on the economy. I'd call that a pretty serious repercussion (and news).

I think the headline overstates the results but not for the reasons you infer i.e. that you cannot extrapolate the findings of this survey to the wider UK electorate. Assuming that the survey methodology was sound - and I can't find any articles suggesting otherwise - then the results can be said to be representative of the views of the British electorate as a whole. However, for most of the questions whilst the percentage of respondents who believe that Brexit is having a negative impact is vastly superior to the percentage believing it to be positive, in most cases that number is slightly under 50%. Brexiters shouldn't take too much comfort from this fact as, in most cases, it would require almost 100% of the 'Dont knows' to change their mind and think of Brexit in a favourable light to materially alter the perception that Brexit is having a negative impact. A pretty unlikely event imo.

It's news because the repercussions of the Brexit vote are still evolving. It will cease to be news if a line can be drawn under and a decision made about the absolute success or failure of it.

Why is it "clearly not news"? I'd argue the exact opposite. Brexit is arguably the biggest UK domestic event for 50+ years. The fact that newspapers - 'The Guardian' is not alone - continue to discuss the merits of the decision seems extremely apt. Yes that would be news. It would also defy logic as the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that, to date, Brexit has been an abject failure. I'm guessing that they want to publish news. The fact that this news supports their editorial stance obviously isn't a coincidence but would you expect 'The Express' to suppress an anti-EU poll/ story? I wouldn't. I don't understand the US comparison but, as I mentioned in the previous paragraph, there is a large body of evidence supporting the view that, to date, Brexit has been a failure. Then at least we agree about that.

Your original post: "Just over 2000 polled. Not a clear majority of Britons. A majority of those polled, by the Guardian, at an unknown location, of an unknown age, background.........the list goes on." That seems to question the methodology and if you question the methodology, surely it must cast doubt upon the results?

So are you saying the following: 1) By conducting this survey Opinium hopes it might increase its' customer base (imo a reasonable assumption) 2) By publishing the results of this survey 'The Guardian' hopes to increase its readership (again imo a reasonable assumption) 3) If the results of the survey had not been what 'The Guardian' considers "favourable" the results might not have been published (a much more contentious assumption but for the sake of argument let's assume this is true). My question is: How does any of this cast doubt on the validity of the survey results?

There are almost certainly some immigrants to the UK who fall into one or more of those categories. However imo the vast majority do not, and many of those that do try to remove themselves from that classification.

Exactly what point has been confirmed?

"I'm not a racist, xenophobe, Putin apologist, etc but .... " If you continue to put those who point out the flaws in your arguments on 'Ignore', you'll be talking to yourself before too much longer.

The Crown Estate is a property management company. If the institution of the Monarchy ceased to exist, the Crown Estate would continue to generate revenue and profit. I don't understand the principle behind linking the sum allocated to the HoS to perform their official duties to the revenue/ profits made by a company, especially given that the Monarch has no role in the day-to-day operation of the company. I am dubious to say the least, that the level of expenditure associated with the Monarchy is justified and offers 'value for money'. For example, "The total Sovereign Grant for 2022-23, amounted to £86.3 million (2021-22: £86.3 million), which is made up of a core grant of £51.8 million which funds official travel, property maintenance and the operating costs of The Sovereign’s household." (Source: https://www.royal.uk/media-pack/financial-reports-2022-23) compared with the costs associated with running the Office of the President of Ireland - an elected HoS -which amounted to €4.8m in 2021 (https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40729734.html). I accept that differences in functions, etc make a direct comparison of the costs of servicing the two HoS' households difficult, but I also would need some convincing that the cost of running the Royal Household should be 10 times that of the Irish President's Office. Imo the idea that the Institution of the Monarchy 'costs in' is, at best, unproven.

I'm almost certain that the amount paid to an elected UK HoS - whoever it might be - would be substantially less than the annual £86m Sovereign Grant awarded to Charles.

1319 marriages in the UK were found to be sham between 2016 - 2022; that's an average of less than 200 per year and 1.2% of the total number of cases highlighted as suspicious. You consider this to be a "significant" problem: I don't. I would consider it an act of folly - and a misallocation of resources - to spend any additional time, money and effort investigating matters further given the current figures. If the number of referrals increase then my view might change. Your latest link contains data from the 2013 report which you previously referred to, and even the more recent data is from 2019 so, yet again, it is outdated and largely irrelevant.

I don't have a problem. It's your opinion. But there's no point in discussing matters any more if all the evidence you have amounts to, 'I know what I know'.

Any event, between 19 February 1960 and 20 June 1982 (both dates inclusive) which would have caused Charles to renounce his (future) claim to the throne would have resulted in Andrew becoming first-in-line and this would have meant that he would now be King. So, yes strictly speaking, two significant events: An event affecting Charles' right to succeed AND the death of the Queen would have both been necessary for Andrew to become King. But you knew that is what I meant. There really isn't any limit to your pedantry, is there? (Cue reply about how neither of us can know what the other is thinking or some sarky remark about having no idea how my mind works).

But you see it as relevant to the topic to suggest that sham marriages are a problem in the UK (without any data to support your view)?

So if I've understood you correctly, you are saying that there is nothing wrong with being anti-immigration? Presumably, you don't see the irony in holding such a view whilst, at the same time, being an immigrant yourself?

What he says is never trust a non-white, non-UK trained doctor. He bases his conclusion on "Ravens are birds, all ravens are black therefore all birds are black" type logic.

As long as they don't expect me to follow their lead, people can believe in the Tooth Fairy for all I care, although I doubt that I would understand their reason for doing that either. Neither you nor I know anything about the OP's marriage situation, so you can't possibly rationally assume that the issue of sham marriage is of any relevance in this particular context. As the data shows, there is no significant sham marriage "problem" in the UK. It's just another attempt to beat the anti-immigrant drum.

George VI was, at one point, second-in-line for the throne. He became King. Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford were, at one point, second-in-line for US presidency. They both became President. Prince Andrew was, a long period of time, second-in-line for the throne. He didn't become King but he was only ever one "significant" event from succeeding to the throne. I rest my case.

near·ly /ˈnirlē/ adverb 1. very close to; almost. Source: Google

The (non) issuing of Thai Non-O spousal ME visas has absolutely nothing to do with UK Home Office data and/or sham marriages in the UK. I would have thought that much was blindingly obvious but apparently not. The UK government has not increased the financial requirements for family visa applications in order to curb sham marriages, although I guess that might be a possible tiny by-product: It has done so in order to reduce the number of immigrants. It's just nonsense to suggest that the Home Office is "woke infested".

Official Home Office data vs. individual anecdotal evidence. Which is more credible?

Seasons greetings. I see that you are back to your pedantic self.

Second in line to the throne at one point.

I think that you should check the source of the data quoted by the "open borders brigade"; it's the Home Office. The report you link to is from 2013 so is now completely outdated and irrelevant. The link that I provided is from July this year so still very much relevant.